The Truth of the Proposition: Satire Und Theology Version

Macintosh

The Truth of the Proposition

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy)

Preface

The continuation of text review:

Key symbols

≡df = Equivalence by definition
: = Equal (s)
ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as
⊨ is Entails
˜ = Not
∃ = There exists
∃! = There exists
∴ = Therefore
· = Therefore
< = Is included
v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives).
x = variable
· = Conjunction meaning And
0 = Null class
cls = Class
int = Interpretation
---

Previously

Langer explains that a proposition can only be known via another proposition. (183). Implication is a relation that only holds among propositions. (183). Propositions are regarded as postulates. (185). A postulate needs to belong to the system, in the language of that system. A postulate should imply further propositions of that system. A postulate should not contradict any other accepted postulate, or any other proposition implied by another postulate. (185).

In other words, symbolic logic requires non-contradiction within its system in a universe of discourse.

Requirements

Coherence: Every proposition in the system must cohere to the established conceptual structure. (185). It must be in coherence with the rest.

Contributiveness : A postulate should contribute and have implication. (185-186).

Consistency: Most important states Langer (186). Two contradictory propositions (or premises) cannot contradict each other in a system. (186). The inconsistent is logically impossible. It is a fatal condition. (186). It is not logic at all. (186).

Independence: Postulates should be independent from each other. (186). If a proposition is deductible from a postulate already provided, then it is a theorem, a necessary fact, not another assumption. (186). Something provable in a theorem would be error to include as a postulate. (186). I would reason that within philosophy there would be plenty of debate on what is a proposition/premise within systems and what would be a theorem. Langer explains that when a theorem needs elucidation, any proposition implied by another proposition as granted and proved within a system is a theorem. (186-187).
---

The Truth of the Proposition

Philosopher Langer writes that in the book, so far, nothing had been mentioned in regard to the truth of a proposition. (188). An implied proposition is true if all the premises are true. (188). The implied proposition could also be defined as the conclusion. If the premises are false, she opines that the proposition may or may not be true. (188).

There can be false premises and a true conclusion for a valid argument, but there cannot be true premise (s) and false conclusion with validity.

Validity is a set of premises supporting a conclusion. Technically in logic the premises do not have to be true, simply valid. Elements (1997: 33).

Therefore a valid deductive argument can have

False premises and a true conclusion (FT)

False premises and a false conclusion (FF)

True premises and a true conclusion (TT)

However

True premises and a false conclusion (TF) is invalid.

Valid arguments with all true premises are called sound arguments. These include a true conclusion.

Langer explains

Brutus killed Caesar ⊃ Caesar is dead. (188). (⊃ is means the same as).

Since the implied premise is true the proposition is also true (consequent). (188). Blackburn explains 'Any proposition of the form 'if p then q'. The condition hypothesized, p, is called the antecedent of the conditional, and q the consequent'. Blackburn (1996: 73).

If

Brutus killed Caesar ˜ ⊃ (Brutus did not kill Caesar) Caesar is dead  (my equation using not the same)

This would not change the implication that Caesar was dead. (188). Brutus did not kill Caesar; Caesar died in another way.

Brutus fatally stabbed Caesar ∴ (therefore) Caesar is dead

Brutus murdered Caesar ⊨ (entails) Caesar is dead

---

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

---

An entry was placed on academia.edu with additions on 20251128

Panentheism Revisited: Satire Und Theology Version

Panentheism Revisited

Preface

London, Greenwich (trekearth.com)

An article which compiles some previous articles on panentheism for a new entry on Blogger and an entry on academia.edu.

Panentheism 

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter

Process theism approaches are sometimes referred to as being panentheistic.[1] The two approaches are not identical but process theism moves in the direction of panentheism.[2] David H. Nikkel (2003) defines panentheism as from the Greek meaning ‘all is in God.’[3] Both God’s transcendence and immanence are accepted, as the world and matter is in God, and God is ‘all-encompassing with respect to being.’[4] Panentheism is not identical to pantheism which postulates that ‘God is identical with everything’[5] or that God is in everything and that God and the universe are one.[6] The difference being that panentheism understands ‘God is in all things’[7] but not identical with all things as with pantheism.[8] As example, God in pantheism may be considered to be equal with a tree. God in panentheism may be considered beyond the tree, but the vital force within it, where as in my traditional Christian theistic understanding God is beyond a tree and sustains it, but is not the vital force within it.[9] Panentheism attempts to ‘avoid the pitfalls’ of traditional theism.[10] God is prohibited from having a true and genuine relationship with matter and the universe because of traditional theistic views such as that God is immutable, impassible, and eternal and timeless.[11] Panentheism is an intellectual compromise between traditional theism and pantheism.[12] God is more than just the material universe, as there is an unchanging aspect to God’s being and also a dynamic aspect to God as the divine being changes as matter and the universe do.[13] German philosopher, F.W. J. Schelling [14] (1845)(1936) reasons: ‘As there is nothing before or outside of God, he must contain within himself the ground of his existence.’[15] He reasons God’s nature is inseparable from God and yet can be distinguished.[16] Panentheism can reasonably be understood as an overarching view within many process theism approaches[17] which I have contrasted with my own views.[18] 

________________

[1] Geisler (1975: 153).

[2] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 142). I am not stating that this is the case in every documented view of process theism, but it is generally true that the two views are closely related.

[3] Nikkel (2003: 1).

[4] Nikkel (2003: 1).

[5] Martinich (1996: 556).

[6] Blackburn (1996: 276). Blackburn also explains Benedictus de Spinoza (1632-1677) is noted for this view within Western philosophy

[7] Martinich (1996: 556). The doctrine that all things exist in God. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 94).

[8] Martinich (1996: 556).

[9] This is my example based on Erickson’s presentation. Erickson (1994: 303-307).

[10] Nikkel (2003: 1). Many modern theologians and philosophers now question the concept of an eternal God. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 94).

[11] Nikkel (2003: 1). God is not eternal within this view. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 94).

[12] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 94).

[13] Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 94).

[14] Schelling lived (1775-1854). Blackburn (1996: 341).

[15] Schelling (1845)(1936: 32).

[16] Schelling (1845)(1936: 32). Schelling sought to deflect criticisms that he was a pantheist. ‘Unity is of essence, but so is diversity.’ Gutmann (1845)(1936: xxxi). However, his comments make it possible that he had views which were perhaps panentheistic. Material things are dependent on God and yet independent.

[17] Including that of Whitehead. Nikkel (2003: 2-3). Grenz and Olsen (1992: 142).

[18] My views are Reformed but not strictly within a certain camp such as Presbyterian or Baptist. I have primarily come to my Reformed views through MPhil and PhD research.

---

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1975) Philosophy of Religion, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

GRENZ, STANLEY J. AND ROGER E. OLSON (1992) Twentieth Century Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

GUTMANN, JAMES (1845)(1936) ‘Introduction’ in SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago. 

KREEFT, PETER and RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

MARTINICH, A.P. (1999) ‘Pantheism’ in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

NIKKEL, DAVID H. (2003) ‘Panentheism’, in Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, MacMillan Reference USA, New York. 

SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago.

---

Process Theism: Alfred North Whitehead

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter

David Viney (2008) suggests that Edgar Sheffield Brightman is one of the twentieth century proponents of Process theism.[1] Although Brightman’s views were primarily independently made, process theism refers to a general group of theological concepts attributed to Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)[2] and Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000).[3]

Whitehead is the more preeminent exemplar and within Process and Reality (1927-1929)(1957) explains he desired to complete an account of humanity and its experience in relation to philosophical problems.[4] In Religion In The Making (1926) Whitehead explains it is legitimate to attempt with a more definite knowledge of metaphysics, to interpret human experience, but these general principles must be amplified and adapted into one general system of truth.[5]

Whitehead disagreed with a traditional view of a ‘transcendent creator, at whose fiat the world came into being, and whose imposed will it obeys.’[6] The nature of God needed to be philosophically constructed anew.[7] A balance is sought between God’s immanence and transcendence, and a concept of static transcendence is rejected as instead God is understood to have a evolutionary transcendence. God and the physical realm are immanent with each other and God’s transcendence means their realities are not identical and not always determined by each other.[8] God is fully reasoned to be involved and influenced by temporal events and processes.[9] These processes unfold as sequences of events over time. God, contrary to classic and traditional Christian theism is finite, temporal, changeable and experiences intense emotion, pain and sadness. Whitehead explains that ‘It is not true that God is on all respects infinite.’[10] Process theology is a philosophical approach that does not rely on any kind of divine revelation.[11] Instead it relies on a process of change over time as a theory of metaphysics.[12] God’s actual concrete nature is responsive and influenced by the processes that take in the world, and therefore God is limited. Some things are unknowable for God, that he only can realize as they happen, and as these new things develop God’s knowledge processes over time. Divine sovereignty is questionable and certainly no longer absolute within this system.

Whitehead, a mathematician and philosopher, established a speculative philosophy of metaphysics within a scientific non-metaphysical reality.[13] This system is an attempt to adequately explain all individual beings in existence, including God.[14] Basically a system of metaphysics needed to be developed that would work with modern scientific theories and reality, and therefore God was not a ‘static essence’ but a process.[15] The ‘actual entities’[16] that make up this process are non-permanent and transient and each action and activity is dipolar having a physical pole of the past and a mental pole which is a possibility that can be achieved.[17] The physical pole feels the physical reality of actual entity, while the mental pole feels or prehends as Whitehead calls it, the eternal objects by which actual entities have conceptual definiteness.[18] These physical and mental poles are an aspect of every real being/actual entities although they are not real things themselves.[19]

Prehends is the feeling of grasping the physical and conceptual information concerning actual entities.[20] This will occur within a stream and series of occasions.[21] All occurrences take place within the process of these actual entities.[22] Each event is partially self-created and partially influenced by other occasions and entities.[23] God is also dipolar[24] and his nontemporal pole is where God conceives the infinite variety of external objects and sees the possibilities and provides the opportunity for the process of becoming. God is an actual entity and being.[25] God has a primordial nature and consequent nature, with the primordial being conceptual, while the consequent nature is God as conscious.[26] Whitehead explains that the ‘consequent nature is the weaving of God’s physical feelings upon his primordial concepts.’[27] God’s primordial conceptual nature is infinite and does not have negative prehension/feelings, and is eternal and unconscious.[28] This nature is permanent as God works out endless possibilities.[29] God in his vision can determine every possibility and adjust details where needed.[30] The consequent nature of God originates with physical experience with the material temporal world and it is integrated with the primordial conceptual nature.[31] The consequent nature as conscious is determined, finite and incomplete.[32] These two aspects of God’s deity can be distinguished but are inseparable.[33] This consequent conscious nature had God constantly acquiring new experiences.[34]

A problem arises that if God’s primordial nature is eternal and unconscious[35] it precedes the consequent nature that is temporal and has consciousness. I question whether an unconscious deity would in any way proceed to a conscious temporal reality. Where did God’s consciousness come from? I reason consciousness would have to exist eternally to lead to a finite reality of consciousness.

________________

[1] Viney (2008: 35).

[2] Viney (2008: 1).

[3] Viney (2008: 1).

[4] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: vi).

[5] Whitehead (1926: 149).

[6] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 404).

[7] Whitehead (1926: 150).

[8] Viney (2008: 10).

[9] Viney (2008: 1).

[10] Whitehead (1926: 153). Whitehead claims that if God was infinite in all ways this would make him as infinitely evil as he is good. I doubt logically and reasonably that an infinitely holy and good God could at the same time be infinitely evil and so I can grant Whitehead half a point here. However, God could still be infinite completely in nature and willingly allow evil to exist within his creation. I definitely agree with Whitehead that an infinitely good and evil God would be a God of nothingness. Whitehead (1926: 153). I doubt this being could logically exist.

[11] Viney (2008: 1).

[12] Viney (2008: 1).

[13] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135).

[14] Diehl (1996: 881).

[15] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135).

[16] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 135).

[17] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 136).

[18] Diehl (1996: 881). Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[19] Viney (2008: 8).

[20] Diehl (1996: 881). Viney (2008: 9).

[21] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 136).

[22] Diehl (1996: 881).

[23] Diehl (1996: 881).

[24] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[25] Viney (2008: 9).

[26] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[27] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[28] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[29] Viney (2008: 9).

[30] Whitehead (1926: 153-154).

[31] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[32] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[33] Viney (2008: 9).

[34] Viney (2008: 9).

[35] Whitehead (1927-1929)(1957: 407).

[36] Grenz and Olsen (1992: 142). I am not stating that this is the case in every documented view of process theism, but it is generally true that the two views are closely related.

[37] Nikkel (2003: 1).

[38] Nikkel (2003: 1).

[39] Blackburn (1996: 276). Blackburn also explains Benedictus de Spinoza (1632-1677) is noted for this view within Western philosophy

[40] Nikkel (2003: 1).

---

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

DIEHL, DAVID W. (1996) ‘Process Theology’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

GRENZ, STANLEY J. AND ROGER E. OLSON (1992) Twentieth Century Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

NIKKEL, DAVID H. (2003) ‘Panentheism’, in Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, MacMillan Reference USA, New York.

VINEY, DAVID (2008) ‘Process Theism’, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Palo Alto, California, Stanford University.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1926) Religion in the Making, New York, The MacMillan Company.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1927-1929)(1957) Process and Reality, New York, The Free Press/MacMillan Publishing Company, Incorporated.

WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH (1967)(1986) ‘Adventures of Ideas’, in Forest Wood JR., Whiteheadian Thought as a Basis for a Philosophy of Religion, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, University Press of America, Inc.

20251121

'God in pantheism may be considered to be equal with a tree. God in panentheism may be considered beyond the tree, but the vital force within it, where as in my traditional Christian theistic understanding God is beyond a tree and sustains it, but is not the vital force within it.'

Pantheism is a form of monism, as in reasoning the theistic is of a single substance, nature and entity. This is error as God is infinite, eternal and necessary, in contrast to created things which are finite, non-eternal, potentially everlasting, contingent, entities. 

Panentheism views God in all things, but not identical with all things. It understands the existence of both the infinite/necessary and finite/contingent within reality and within God. God therefore, within panentheism would be understood as having both a necessary aspect and a contingent aspect. From my Reformed theological, worldview, I view this as contradictory as the finite is not divine and cannot be divine. Note that the classic understanding of the incarnation of Jesus Christ is that his divine (infinite) nature and human (finite) nature cannot logically mix, and do not mix.

My Reformed theological perspective views the infinite, eternal God as creating and sustaining the finite. God is not the vital, infinite, force within the finite, but is the vital, infinite force sustaining the finite.

'Whitehead explains that ‘It is not true that God is on all respects infinite.’[10]'  '[10] Whitehead (1926: 153). Whitehead claims that if God was infinite in all ways this would make him as infinitely evil as he is good. I doubt logically and reasonably that an infinitely holy and good God could at the same time be infinitely evil and so I can grant Whitehead half a point here. However, God could still be infinite completely in nature and willingly allow evil to exist within his creation. I definitely agree with Whitehead that an infinitely good and evil God would be a God of nothingness. Whitehead (1926: 153). I doubt this being could logically exist.'

God is in all respects, infinite. God is at the same time, in all respects logical. God is not contradictory within infinity. God is perfectly good and not evil. Everything God causes is for the good, with good motives, even when evil is secondarily caused. 

A classic example is the death of Jesus Christ on the cross and the resulting atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ applied to believers. The triune God, as the primary cause, had perfectly good motives for the gospel. Secondary causes include, Satan that had evil motives in persuading Judas to betray Jesus Christ. Satan desired his own worship, see Matthew 4 and Luke 4, even from Jesus Christ himself. The Jewish and Roman authorities, crucified him with evil motives, which based on the New Testament could be reasoned were primarily religious/political in the first case and political in the second case.

Links

Friday, January 01, 2010 Does God evolve? 

Friday, June 18, 2010 Process Theism: Alfred North Whitehead (PhD edit)

Sunday, April 01, 2012 Panentheism (PhD Edit)/iTunes Personally Evolving Toward Classical 

Wednesday, August 10, 2016 The Trinity: Panentheism & Pantheism

Saturday, July 25, 2020 Pantheism, Panentheism, The Trinity II: Non-exhaustive 

Saturday, September 19, 2020 PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

The Orthodox Study Bible: Knowledge: Satire Und Theology Version

The Orthodox Study Bible: Knowledge

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee. 

Preface

My review, as a biblical Christian of the Reformed tradition, of this fine academic source, continues. This Orthodox source uses the New King James Version (NKJV). Originally published on Blogger 20200719, with significant revisions and additions with Blogger 20251113 for an academia.edu entry.

The Orthodox Study Bible: Knowledge

Glossary from Reverend John W. Morris, Ph.D.

Knowledge

Quote:

'Knowing and experiencing the truth of God and salvation through Jesus Christ. Spiritual knowledge (1) is frequently identified with Christian doctrine (2) is applied to the spiritual meaning of the Scripture; and (3) refers to the mystical and contemplative knowledge, not merely intellectual knowledge of God. Its aim and effects are to enhance man's responsibility, to aid in discernment of good and evil and to lead people to God...'(802).

From the verses this study bible provides, I will comment on 2 Corinthians 4: 6.

2 Corinthians 4: 6 The New King James Version (NKJV)

6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 4: 6 King James Version (KJV)

6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 

2 Corinthians 4: 6 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 

6 For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. 

Greek New Testament 2 Corinthians 4: 6

From the five Greek New Testament sources provided. 

γνώσεως 

(knowledge)

Bible Hub: 2 Corinthians 4: 6

γνώσεως knowledge N-GFS

Noun: Genitive (of) feminine, singular

of the knowledge

Bible Hub: 1108. gnósis 

Cited 

Strong's Concordance 

gnósis: a knowing, knowledge 

Original Word: γνῶσις, εως, ἡ 

Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine 

Transliteration: gnósis Phonetic 

Spelling: (gno'-sis) 

Definition: a knowing, knowledge 

Usage: knowledge, doctrine, wisdom. 

Cited 

2 Corinthians 4:6 

N-GFS GRK: φωτισμὸν τῆς γνώσεως τῆς δόξης 

NAS: to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory 

KJV: [give] the light of the knowledge of the glory 

INT: radiancy of the knowledge of the glory

Bauer documents that in 2 Corinthians 4:6, γνώσεως is 'enlightening of the knowledge' of God (163). This is given by God (163). Therefore it is revelatory knowledge and not found through the use of human reason. Rather human reason, by God's grace, can reasonably comprehend God's revelation. It is not a complete comprehension, but is significant.

Courson provides a practical theology: 'Both the face and the grace of God are revealed in the Person of Jesus.' (1115).

---

Theological & Philosophical reflections

I am in basic agreement with the Orthodox text here. 

1) Knowledge '(1) is frequently identified with Christian doctrine' (802)...

True, legitimate, New Testament knowledge of God, which is spiritual knowledge of God, is directly connected to concepts of New Testament (and biblical) doctrine. Therefore, it is related to theology. Theology, doctrine and Christian dogma (central beliefs), especially within the Christian Church, should not be considered as valuable only for 'theology nerds', 'serious bible students', pastors, elders and academics. Make no mistake, a lack of significant theological understanding, equates to a lack of spiritual knowledge, at least in some areas.

'Knowing and experiencing the truth of God and salvation through Jesus Christ' (802). Idealistically, this should occur with at least a basic, sound, New Testament theological understanding. I am not stating the Christian believer should study academic theology thoroughly, but I do think for accuracy, the New Testament and Hebrew Bible should be read in context, with the assistance of commentaries and biblical tools. I still reason that a basic belief in the gospel (Acts 2, Romans 10) through regeneration (John 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1) is legitimate salvation, but without sound theology, is an immature Christian faith and worldview.

2) '(2) is applied to the spiritual meaning of the Scripture' (802).

This spiritual knowledge of God is applied for a correct and reasonable interpretations and meanings of scripture. For correct theology. 

3) This knowledge refers to mystical and not just intellectual knowledge. In the perfect will of God for Christian believers, the Holy Spirit guides the spirit/mind, and physical brain of the regenerate to have a significantly, true, understanding of doctrine and theology, which is both intellectual and spiritual, not either/or in my humble opinion.

It would be possible for a scholar or reader/reviewer to intellectually understand scripture and theology without a proper spiritual understanding. Scholars such as these could still serve as legitimate academic sources of facts within biblical studies, theology and philosophy of religion, for example. I deduce I have cited some of these scholars. Biblical exegesis and analysis can be done by the unregenerate and unregenerate scholar, not by just the believing Christian. However, practical application of scripture should be guided by the Holy Spirit of God, engaging with a studious Christian mind. Practical, obedient, Christian living with the use of scripture requires a person to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

The gospel is indeed understood through revelatory, scriptural knowledge. But, it still requires the use of the human brain as a secondary source for human comprehension. In other words, God reveals as primary source/cause, and the regenerate embrace the gospel as a secondary source/cause. Human cause here is in the sense of embracing the gospel, living within salvation, not creating the means of salvation in any way, whatsoever. Human salvation is not forced or coerced, it is embraced.

I do not deny the value of theistic, philosophy of religion as I reason that some ontological truths about God can be known through the use of reason within philosophy. This includes, non-exhaustively, reasoning God as infinite, logically consistent, eternal, necessary, sufficient as in necessary with key premises, such as God is good and holy. The necessary that exists in each possible reality is good. The necessary that exists in each possible reality is holy and set apart from its creation. 

The necessary would be the first cause. The finite caused is contingent and can be a secondary cause only. 

---

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘A priori/A posteriori’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 21-22. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BONJOUR, LAURENCE. (1996) ‘A Priori’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

EDWARDS, PAUL AND ARTHUR PAP (1973) (eds), ‘A priori knowledge: Introduction’, A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press. 

GUYER, PAUL AND ALLEN W, in KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

HUME, DAVID (1739-1740)(1973) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press. 

HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Lawrence, Kansas.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company. 

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

Immutable/Impassible (PhD Edit): Satire Und Theology Version

Griesbach, Germany 

Immutable/Impassible (PhD Edit)

Preface

Section of my PhD placed on Blogger 20130206. Slight reformat on Blogger for an entry on academia.edu, 20251107.

Photo not mine, as noted.

Saturday, September 19, 2020: PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

Immutable/Impassible (PhD Edit)

Professor van der Ven finds Moltmann’s discussion on the ancient view, that God is apathetic towards his creation, useful.[1]  Moltmann notes the related Greek term ‘apatheia’ which is the idea of an irresistible force that cannot be influenced by outside forces.[2]  Historically in early Greek times from Aristotle onwards, God was viewed as being without emotions.[3]  Brian Davies (1999) notes that the term ‘impassibility’ corresponds to ‘apatheia’[4] and defines impassibility as the traditional understanding that God, the divine nature, cannot experience pain or suffering.[5]  Davies believes it is incorrect to assume God’s impassibility should mean that the creator is indifferent or unconcerned about his creation.[6]  For Erickson, the idea of God’s divine nature as impassible is based upon the influence of ancient Greek thought rather than Scripture.[7]  Erickson points out that with the incarnation of Christ, God the Son did experience human suffering.[8]  He possessed a human nature that did suffer in life and in death, even though his divine nature coexisted with his human one.[9]  Kenneth Surin (1982) writes that God is considered by some within orthodox Christian theology to be unable to experience pain or sorrow.[10]  However, others concede that concluding God is impassible is a questionable view within traditional thought.[11]  Surin thinks that perhaps God limits his omnipotence by identifying with human suffering.[12]  Paul Helm (2006), Professor Emeritus of the University of London,[13] reasons impassibility has lost intellectual support,[14] even though throughout the ages many within the Church have accepted the doctrine.[15]  Helm suggests that the doctrine needs to be reconsidered as God is not indifferent to human suffering,[16] nor does God express emotions of anger and passion as humans do.[17] 

The concept of impassibility opens up a complex discussion beyond this thesis, but it seems reasonable God can be both all-powerful and feel negative emotions.  It should be concluded suffering does not alter his divine attributes. Thiessen describes the immutability of God as meaning his divine nature, attributes, consciousness, and will cannot change.[18]  Erickson explains that God does not grow or develop, as there are no variations in his nature at different points within his existence.[19]  R.C. Sproul and Robert Wolgemuth (2000) deduce that as God is eternal he has no beginning or no end.[20]  As God is understood to be eternal and beyond time without a progression in nature, his infinite being would make a change in nature and character impossible.[21]  My modest proposal reasons since God is infinite and considered immutable,[22] it is impossible for him to suffer in the exact way that human beings do.  David A Pailin (1999) explains that within some process theology[23] approaches, God’s existence may be viewed as absolute, necessary and unchanging.[24]  However, God’s character can change and is determined through interaction with his creation.[25]  Pailin postulates that God’s character can change, as he loves his creatures.[26]  In my view, the divine nature does not have a physical body that can be altered, changed or die, as in John 4:24 where Jesus stated that God is spirit.[27]  Christ could suffer because he was both true God and true man,[28] but God as spirit[29] cannot suffer in human terms.  Since God is immutable,[30] any type or amount of suffering cannot alter his essential nature or being, or divine character.[31]  In contrast, suffering can definitely change the essential nature of human beings as, for example, in the case of an amputated limb or death.  Suffering can also change the mental and spiritual well being of a person, but God would not be altered in the same way.[32]

Erickson explains that it does seem a rational possibility, however, to conclude God does have emotions, although they are controlled.[33]  He indicates anger is involved in the idea of God’s wrath in the Biblical example Romans 1:18.[34]  God also has ‘agape’ love for his creatures, which is a steadfast, unselfish concern for them.[35]  It is reasonable to deduce that God’s love for humanity is not only a decision to care for them, but also includes intense concern for his creation.[36]  An understanding, infinite God could comprehend the sufferings of his finite creatures,[37] but God’s essential nature and being would not be altered by the experience of these feelings.[38]  There is no need to conclude that the sufferings of finite creatures alter the nature of an infinite God who can comprehend and feel those sufferings.[39]  Therefore, even if, for the sake of argument, impassibility is a correct deduction concerning God’s nature,[40] Christ possessing the full nature of God[41] and a full human nature[42] enabled him to experience suffering and evil.[43]  God the Son can therefore relate to human suffering on a personal level.  I reason God’s immutable nature does not necessarily make him impassible.

---

---

[1] van der Ven (1993: 173).

[2] Moltmann (1993: 267).

[3] Moltmann (1993: 268).

[4] Davies (1999: 288).

[5] Davies (1999: 288).

[6] Davies (1999: 288).

[7] Erickson (1994: 737).

[8] Erickson (1994: 737).

[9] Erickson (1994: 737).

[10] Surin (1982: 97).

[11] Surin (1982: 97).

[12] Surin (1982: 97).

[13] Helm (2006: 1).

[14] Helm (2006: 1).

[15] Helm (2006: 1).

[16] Helm (2006: 1).

[17] Helm (2006: 1).

[18] Thiessen (1956: 127).

[19] Erickson (1994: 274).

[20] Sproul and Wolgemuth (2000: 2).

[21] Sproul and Wolgemuth (2000: 2).

[22] Sproul and Wolgemuth (2000: 2).  Thiessen (1956: 127).  Erickson (1994: 274).

[23] Process theology as discussed previously is a twentieth century approach based on the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead that presents a God that is involved in the continual process of world through two natures.  God has a transcendent nature which contains God’s perfect character and the consequent immanent nature by which God is part of the changing cosmic process.

[24] Pailin (1999: 469).

[25] Pailin (1999: 469).

[26] Pailin (1999: 469).

[27] The New American Standard Version Bible (1984: 1198).

[28] Schreck (1984:  16). 

[29] The New American Standard Version Bible (1984: 1198).

[30] Sproul and Wolgemuth (2000: 2).  Thiessen (1956: 127).  Erickson (1994: 274).

[31] Pailin (1999: 469).

[32] God has an infinite nature that cannot be changed, but finite human nature can be altered.

[33] Erickson (1994: 605).

[34] Erickson (1994: 605).

[35] Erickson (1994: 180).

[36] Erickson (1994: 180).

[37] Pailin (1999: 469).

[38] Thiessen (1956: 127).

[39] Thiessen (1956: 127).

[40] Surin (1982: 97). 

[41] Barth (1932-1968: 371). Williams (2007: 130).  Franke (2005: 72). 

[42] Williams (2007: 129).  Schreck (1984:  16).  Franke (2005: 72). 

[43] Bloesch (1987: 16).  He suffered as the reconciler between God and the world.  Williams (2007: 130).

---

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics,  The Doctrine of the Word of God: Volume 1, Part One, Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark. 

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of Creation: Volumes 1 and 3.  Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark. 

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of God: Volume 2, First Half -Volume, Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark. 

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1987) Freedom for Obedience, San Francisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers.

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1996) ‘Sin, The Biblical Understanding of Sin’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

DAVIES, BRIAN (1999) ‘Impassibility’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, p. 288. Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?  Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids,  Zondervan Publishing House.

FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005)  The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

HELM, PAUL (2006) ‘Divine Impassibility: Why Is It Suffering?’ in Reformation 21, Philadelphia, Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Inc.

http://www.reformation21.org/Past_Issues/2006_Issues_1_16_/2006_Issues_1_16_Articles/Divine_Impassibility/94/

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Process Theology’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

SCHRECK, ALAN (1984) Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Servant Books.

SPROUL, R.C., AND ROBERT WOLGEMUTH (2000) What’s In the Bible, Word Publishing, Nashville.

SURIN, KENNETH (1986) Theology and the Problem of Evil, Oxford,  Basil Blackwell Ltd.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (1993) Practical Theology, Translated by Barbara Schultz, AC Kampen, Netherlands, Kok Pharos Publishing House.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (1998) God Reinvented?, Leiden, Brill.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2005) ‘Theodicy Items and Scheme’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2006a) ‘Dates of Nijmegen authors’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2006b) ‘Symbols versus Models’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

WILLIAMS, ROWAN (2000) On Christian Theology, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. 

20251107 

'In contrast, suffering can definitely change the essential nature of human beings as, for example, in the case of an amputated limb or death. Suffering can also change the mental and spiritual well being of a person, but God would not be altered in the same way.[32]

[32] God has an infinite nature that cannot be changed, but finite human nature can be altered.'

As God has an infinite, eternal, nature, that nature is not mutable by divine knowledge of, or divine experience with finite pain or suffering. Instead of viewing God as traditionally impassible, the view that the divine nature, cannot experience pain or suffering; I would reason that God instead has infinite knowledge of such things, and has infinite knowledge of the finite. I do not embrace, at least, this traditional definition of impassible.

God's infinite nature cannot be altered or changed by anything finite. By anything internal or external. Therefore, God is immutable.